On Wed, 22 May 2013 08:50:51 -0700, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Entrypoint_Routing_and_… -- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:17:13 -0700, Antoine Musso <hashar+wmf(a)free.fr> wrote: * The router does not handle non-routed stuff. So it can't properly handle support for both routed paths and routing queries to various entrypoints. * WebRequest does much more than routing so it's not going to disappear. I've also been contemplating reverse routing. Defining the rules we generate many urls with. Trying to define most of that info inside the same place we route paths. To make defining new things like routing for the ShortUrl extension, etc... or things like the NamespacePaths extension simpler. Besides making custom path patterns simpler that plan was also to tackle our issue with things like non-indexed paths vs. indexed ones. Right now we blindly send all non-query paths to an indexed path (the short url) and all queried paths to non-indexed ones. While we have some non-query URIs that would be best always non-indexed (like Search) and some query URIs that actually should be indexed (like query pages beyond the first page; after we add rel=next/prev to the category page). Additionally it would be ideal for our non-indexed path to be a pretty url too. There is no reason that our non-indexed urls have to be index.php. -- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 12:31:50 -0700, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com> wrote: What's your problem with WebRequest anyways? -- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]

Le 22/05/13 21:36, Daniel Friesen a écrit : My only problem is that it is MediaWiki specific. I am still hoping we will slowly move to reuse third party components which will make it easier for experienced developers to join us without having to learn our "framework". :-d -- Antoine "hashar" Musso

On Wed, May 22, 2013 at 9:05 AM, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com> wrote: It seems like it...I'm sorry if I mislead you the other day in trying to use maintenance, I suppose I just misunderstood your needs. The pattern in WebStart or Maintenance should give you enough to go on. I can't promise it's a 1 hour or less task, but it shouldn't take you too long. Yeah it sucks, but that just reinforces my point about us needing to fix this. FWIW, the request routing stuff is neat, but it's probably overkill for what we're needing here. Incremental improvements can be made to the bootstraping if anyone is brave enough to play with Setup.php ;-) -Chad

Hey, Another problem with this current approach is that it will cause extensions to be loaded, which I have no use for. This however seems hard to get around due to LocalSettings both defining needed config and including the extensions. Cheers -- Jeroen De Dauw http://www.bn2vs.com Don't panic. Don't be evil. --

On Wed, 22 May 2013 09:47:14 -0700, Jeroen De Dauw <jeroendedauw(a)gmail.com> wrote: Looks like we just need to abstract most of WebStart.php and part of doMaintenance into something like includes/Start.php to support things that are neither web nor maintenance. -- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]

On Wed, 22 May 2013 11:18:29 -0700, Tyler Romeo <tylerromeo(a)gmail.com> wrote: There are entrypoint specific things that have to be done before Setup.php but after other common stuff you'd think of putting inside Setup.php. Settings can be entrypoint specific. Web start needs to do things like setup output buffering before including Setup. etc... -- ~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://danielfriesen.name/]